"THE-JURY (ERR - THE OHIO SUPREME COURT) IS-OUT" ON WHETHER OR NOT GEORGE T. MAIER CONTINUES AS STARK CO. SHERIFF!

Back on January 11, 2013, the-then Massillon safety director George T. Maier said to an area media person:  “I guarantee I’ll be qualified for the position [Stark County sheriff] or I won’t apply for it.”

He did apply and was (as the SCPR predicted) selected by the Stark County Democratic Party (on Feburary 5th) with the help of his brother and powerful Stark County Democrat (a former chairman and currently executive vice president).

Democrat Mike McDonald (now deceased) was forced to step aside (for health reasons) from taking office on January 7th after having defeated Republican Larry Dordea (currently Hartville police chief) in the November 7, 2013 election.

By Ohio law, the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee was empowered to select McDonald's successor.

Well, here we are at what appears to be on the threshold of the Ohio Supreme Court making a decision on whether or not the Dems selection should be ratified and the SCPR ventures to say that Maier's qualification is far from being guaranteed.

Former Sheriff Tim Swanson filed a Quo Warranto lawsuit against Maier on February 12th asking the high court to set aside Maier's appointment for the reason that the Dems' selectee was not qualified by the requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section 311.01 (specifically 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (9)(a) or (b).

All the evidence is in (LINK to prior SCPR blog), the matter has been fully briefed (final brief filed on Monday) and the only question that remains is whether or not the court will hold an oral argument before deciding the question.  (LINK to Ohio Supreme Court website to see the progression of the case)

The SCPR believes that the evidence and the briefs indicate Maier has not been able to deliver on his guaranty and would be surprised to see the Supreme Court leave him in office.

And if such happens, it will be very unfortunate for Stark County which has been subjected to a number of political/governmental trauma: to wit:

• an "imposed" sales tax and its repeal (2008/2009
• the theft of nearly $3 million from the Stark County treasury (2009), and
• the loss of huge amounts of local government funds from the State of Ohio which could result (in the opinion of the SCPR) the closure of the Canton-Stark County Crime Lab and a consequent impairment of the ability of local prosecutors to put charged felons behind bars,

There is no doubt to yours truly, that if the Supreme Court turns George T. Maier out-of-office, Stark County is in for another trauma.

As it was when that august body returned Gary Zeigler as Stark County treasurer and in doing so removed Alex Zumbar.

If Maier loses, it is hard to see how Randy Gonzalez remains as chairman of the Stark County Democratic Party.

From the SCPR's perspective, the prospect of Maier being turned out of office was avoidable.

It is now obvious to The Report (from looking at the evidence tendered to the Supreme Court and the arguments made) that Maier had to have known from the get-go that he has problems qualifying to be sheriff.

It is stunning to The Report that he and the supposedly expert political operative in the family (i.e. brother Johnnie) would not have anticipated that George would one day be a prime candidate to be Stark County sheriff.

Rule one for anybody is to prepare oneself for opportunities that may come along.

That George put his qualifications to be sheriff questioned is unbelievable.

From the time he left the Ohio Department of Public Safety (January 11, 2011) through January 7, 2013, he had ample opportunity and time to cure any lack he may have in qualifying under ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b).

That he didn't do so is, to say the least, a head scratcher and may suggest that he lacks the ability to look down the road and prepare (in case he remains sheriff) his office for what suddenly appears on the horizon.

While he appears amply qualified to be sheriff by virtue of his police work (i.e. de facto policing experience) going back many, many years to the days he served in the Hartville and Tuscarawas Township police departments and continuing through his years as a state highway patrolman, there is the question of his temperament that the SCPR has raised in prior blogs (LINK).

Hopefully, if the Supreme Court rules in his favor, he has learned that it is very important for someone as powerful as a county sheriff that he develop the ability to control his temper; if, in fact, he has a problem in this regard.

The SCPR believes that Stark County Democratic Party chairman Randy Gonzalez (in addition to brother Johnnie) has not served George's interests well and have not served the interests of Stark Countians well.

Particularly telling on him, in the opinion of The Report, was his use of attorney opinion (whoop-de-doo!) to slide by  ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b).  Also, disconcerting was the use of "you must sign your ballot, to have it counted" ruling.

It was amazing to the SCPR that 84 brave souls risked incurring the ire of the Maiers and the party chairman (who lobbied hard with the Central Committee members on behalf of Maier) in voting for Lou Darrow.

The Report believes that the Maiers, Gonzalez and others supporting Maier fully understood the qualification problem but proceeded anyway in the belief that the likes of Tim Swanson would not challenge George's selection in Ohio's court system.

Their approach reminds the SCPR of the legal adage that "possession is 9/10ths of the law."  Analogizing, yours truly figures that the Maier camp calculations was that once George is selected, the opposition will fade and the question of qualification will become irrelevant.

To The Report, using such machinations and calculations is not the way for one to become county sheriff.

The sheriff is a county's chief law enforcement officer and it is extremely important that there be no question whatsoever that he be qualified "as a matter of the rule of law."

Attorney opinions are "a dime a dozen" and have no place in being determinative on questions such George T. Maier's qualification to be Stark County sheriff.

The better course for Stark Dems to have taken would have been to have selected Lou Darrow as McDonald's successor.  There is no question about his qualifications under ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) and (B)(9)(a) or (b) or any other part of ORC 311.01.

In the meantime, George gets his qualification act together and runs for sheriff in the 2014 Democratic primary.

Yours truly does not know much about Darrow, but it could be that he has the political magnetism requisite to become sheriff.  Some have suggested that he does not.

The Report has seen George T. Maier enough to attest that this guy is very polished, very professional, and has a way with people that makes him a highly attractive political candidate.

Accordingly, it appears that Maier would handily win a political face-off with Darrow.

Then, of course, there would likely be another match up between the Democratic nominee (presumably Maier) and Republican Larry Dordea.

Maier versus Dordea would likely be highly competitive.

And both like McDonald and Dordea (in the 2012 election) would be prepared to be Stark County sheriff.

Let the people choose; not the party bosses.

Such was the concern of the SCPR when news of Mike McDonald's health concerns first arose.

While the Stark County Democratic Party hierarchy emphatically denies that they knew during the run-up to the November, 2012 election that it was likely Mike McDonald would never take office as Stark County sheriff, yours truly remains skeptical.

It may be that the Ohio Supreme Court will be convinced by the largely "equivalency arguments" of Maier's legal counsel and keep him in office.

In terms of whether or not such a decision would heal any misgivings about Maier's legal qualifications depends on the court's legal analysis and, of course, the vote of the justices.

If the justices vote 7 - 0 in Maier's favor, then and only then can he say:

“I guarantee I’ll be qualified for the position [Stark County sheriff] or I [would not have applied] for it."

VIDEOS: CATAZARO-PERRY LOSES ANOTHER VOTE WITH MASSILLON CITY COUNCIL. WHAT IS HER PROBLEM?

VIDEOS

Councilwoman Andrea Scassa On Her Vote

Councilwoman Nancy Halter On Her Vote

Councilman Ed Lewis, IV On His Vote

Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr.

 On the Dire Consequences Massillon

Council Paul Manson On His Vote

The Entire Debate/Vote on Ordinance 35

While the final vote last night at a special session of Massillon City Council went 6 to 3 against the Catazaro-Perry administration negotiated deal with the Hampton Inn located in downtown Massillon whereby the city would cancel its second mortgage ($2.25 million) and liens in exchange for a payment of $1.2 million, the SCPR believes that the dynamics of getting to that final vote was a lot more fluid and "touch and go" than the final number indicates.

The Report had the 6th sense that if the mayor had the requisite persuasion skills one must have to be an effective government executive especially in relation to legislative body, she could have won the vote - perhaps even reversing the 6 to 3 vote to being in favor of the ordinance.

Democratic Councilwoman Andrea Scassa (Ward 3 - the mayor's old ward), said she did not make up her mind until the last moment.



Last week, before the regular city council meeting, Republican Ward 2 Councilwoman Nancy Halter was telling The Report that she did not know how she would vote on the measure.  But by last night, she definitely had decided.



It could be that in the end, her historical opposition to the deal in the first place (back in 1999) was a critical factor.  As show in the video above, she also articulated a council fear that were it to agree to the deal and the hotel was subsequently sold for a handsome profit that council would look - in hindsight - like it had been duped.

And Ed Lewis, IV (Republican - Ward 6) said at the special session that he had been leaning towards voting for Ordinance 35.  Here he explains why he decided to vote "no."



In the end, the mayor and her administration was not persuasive with him and a majority of the Massillon City Council.

One has to wonder whether or not the administration's failure to get the hotel to agree to $10,000 a year downtown Massillon beautification as opposed to $5,000 was a key to the Lewis vote?

Last night's vote against her seems to be a confirmation that the mayor has very little, if any, sway with council members.

It could be that she is having an effect on Councilwoman Quenessa Hampton (Democratic Party appointee - Ward 4) who was one of the three yes votes along with Councilman Donnie Peters, Jr. (Republican - Ward 5) and Democratic Councilman Paul Manson (at -large).

Peters was the most dire in his prediction of the long term consequences to Massillon.



Paul Manson, while he voted "yes" was obviously tentative about that vote.



He was more measured and reflective of the consequences of the "no" vote than Peters, and, interesting enough, he suggests that the mayor may bring negative reaction from some members of council upon herself.  

Most intriguing of all is his suggestion that the issue may still be alive. He did note that the hotel has been doing relatively well of late which could explain why he thinks that there could be ongoing discussions with the hotel's developer (John Helline) to coming to a solution more palatable to a majority of council.

Apparently, the mayor sees herself as a persuasive person.

She shared last night how she was able to convince five Ward 4 residents, brought to her attention by Councilwoman Hampton, of the wisdom of her hotel financing mitigation effort.

Implicit in the mayor's recital is that Councilwoman Hampton was soft on the hotel finance deal, if not adverse to it, prior to the administrations' successful turnaround of some of her constituents.

So why is Mayor Kathy apparently ineffective with many other, if not most, members of council?

There are several possible reasons to ruminate upon:

One being that a number of the councilpersons feel she has not been transparent with them as promised when she first took office.

A second could be a feeling that she is only a figurehead mayor and that folks calling the shots in the executive suites of Massillon City Hall are named Maier and Jackson from their clerk of courts perch.

Thirdly, how about a perceived obstinance?

Witness her go-around with council on her adamant insistence that Massillon raise sorely needed revenues via reducing the tax credit that Massillonians get on out-of-town income taxes they pay coupled with things like having residents pay street lighting fees.

The Report is told that she is meeting on a more or less a weekly basis with fellow Democratic Mayor William J. Healy, II.

There is no doubt about him.  He clearly is a "my way or the highway" type guy.

Question:  Is he rubbing off on Catazaro-Perry?

The mayor, Catazaro-Perry, appears to turn heads and get things going her way out in the Massillon and Stark County social circles.  However, such does not seem to be the case in Massillon's internal political milieu.

In short and in summation, for whatever reason it appears to the SCPR that Mayor Kathy does not have the trust and confidence of much of Masillion's legislative body.

And the prospects of that changing with 2014 - 2015 council to be elected in November are virtually non-existent.

Perhaps it would be helpful to the mayor were she to reconsider her ways (attitude) with council.

If she were to do so, could it be that she might win some of the controversial votes that come before council?

Here is the SCPR video on the entire Ordinance 35 debate.

"NORTH CANTON: A CITY THAT WORKS?"

Recently, Canton Repository columnist Jim Hillibish wrote a piece North Canton:  A city that works (May 10, 2013).

Well, Hillibish couldn't have consulted with North Canton civic activist and former Councilman Chuck Osborne prior to penning his North Canton Chamber of Commerce-esque glossy brochure material.

Moreover, he could not have visited Osborne's website. (LINK)

If one takes a cue from Osborne, one would think nearly "nothing works in North Canton."

Just take a look at a list of complaints he has logged with the Stark County Political Report (via emails) going back no further than January of this year.

And here is a LINK to a prior Stark County Political Report blog which, in turn links to blogs which detail other examples (i.e. street sweepings, the Maples Street Commerce project, and the Bitzer Park Veterans' Memorial) of Osborne's chronic vexation of North Canton City Council.

So which is it?  "A city that works?" or "A city that does NOT work?"

How about something in between?

There are some things with which to be impressed with North Canton about AND there are things to be unimpressed with about The Dogwood City.

All of which brings yours truly to this question:  Is activist Osborne a help or a hindrance to being "a city that works?"

Or, put another way:

• Is his motivation to help the city:

or

•  Is his motivation primarily to self promote and/or work out political comeuppance?

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly nearly always applauds those Stark County citizens (i.e. civic activists) who are willing to stick their necks out in endeavors designed to be a check and balance on the excesses and deficiencies of government.

And Osborne has been a recipient of some of those accolades over the five plus years of The Report's existence.

However, with his latest effort to reform(?) North Canton government; it is becoming more and more apparent to yours truly that he is more interested in keeping his name in the headlines and, perhaps, work out political vendettas than in working with the city's political/governmental leadership to make North Canton "a city that works;" not in the sense of a journalistic puff piece, but as a matter of - day-in, day-out, reality.

The SCPR's take on North Canton is that as municipalities go these days, with the huge financial problems brought on by the State of Ohio ripping away massive amounts of state funding of local government, North Canton is demonstrating that it can and is adjusting and endeavors to be "a city that works."

City leaders like to point to the Maple Street Commerce project (the city's Hoover industrial complex rehab and economic development effort) as a huge success.

Yes, there is some success in that it may have (depending whose numbers one believes) perhaps, upwards of 1,000 jobs or so.  However, that number, whatever it truly is; is a long way from the 3,000 jobs that one key North Canton insider tells the SCPR the project should have produced by now.

So the telling barometer of whether or not North Canton "is a city that works" largely has to do with getting the city back on track in having, maintaining and producing jobs as in the Hoover heyday period.

Even it he makes a point or two here and there, many of Osborne's offerings to make North Canton "a city that works" are of a nit picking, insubstantial variety.

Osborne's latest project:  making the mayor's office a full time position, is not (in the opinion of the SCPR) about making North Canton government more efficient and responsive to the "real" needs" its citizenry.

It is likely, in part, borne of a Osborne political vendetta against Mayor David Held.

Held and Osborne have been - in a political context - at one another's throats for years.

So much so that the basis of the acrimony often gets lost in the fight.  These two appear not to like each other.  And the "make the mayor full time" effort seems to be the latest in a series of back and forths between the two.

If his amendment passes - of forcing Held out of the mayor's office inasmuch as he is the executive director of the prestigious and well-paying Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Joint Solid Waste Management District.

Having to make s choice, the SCPR thinks Held would opt out of the mayor's office.

Osborne undoubtedly understands this likely outcome.

Moreover, The Report sees Osborne's "amend the charter" effort as grandstanding pure and simple so that the name Chuck Osborne makes the headlines between now and November 6, 2013 and beyond.

In yours truly's discussion with Osborne on his justifications for pushing the petition, The Report's take is that the those reasons are tortured and forcibly cobbled together (e.g. a full time mayor can help Administrator Grimes with the day-to-day administrative tasks in the wake of the administrative director's post being left vacant) to make it "appear" that Osborne cares about helping Grimes get North Canton's administrative work done.

Osborne says that the bump up in the mayor's annual income (he suggests to $65,000) would come from the money previously paid to now vacant director of administration.

Such reasoning rings hollow.

If Grimes has a need for help, there are better ways to bring it on board than the full time mayor proposal.

In a historical context, we all know how Osborne is always harping on saving North Canton money.   With his successful 2012 amendment, he convinced North Cantonians to end health care benefits for part-time elected officials.

Except, of course, when he was councilman he took health care benefits.

How is that different from what any other politician?

Osborne has had one office-seeking electoral success in North Canton. 

After losing his reelection bid, he ran for mayor, for council several times and tried to get the third ward seat via appointment when Tim Fox resigned last year to become law director.

To the SCPR, Osborne's incessant drive to achieve elective office manifests a motivation to achieve political power for its own sake which is attendant to his seeming desire to always be in the limelight in constantly cooking up one thing or another to be unhappy with North Canton Council or the Held administration about.

His "make the mayor a full time position" is his third effort since 2005 to force his ideas on council.

As mentioned above, he won last year on the health care issue.

However,  he was unable in 2005 to get a measure on the ballot to redirect North Canton's Community Improvement Corporation monies to the city's general fund.

So it appears to The Report that he is in a sense forcing his way onto council via the petition process.

Doing such is a proper and helpful exercise for citizens in general.

However, when it becomes a substitute for being unable to get elected/appointed as councilman in repetitive tries, then the SCPR thinks it is fair to conclude that the process is being used by him to circumvent the articulated will of the voters in rejecting his candidacies in 2003 and beyond.

Over the years of doing the SCPR, yours truly has been supportive of Osborne on occasion.  But those blogs were done in the context of believing that he was primarily acting as a civic minded citizen working to make North Canton a better city.

The Report is saddened to pretty much come to a realization/belief that Osborne primarily aspires to be a political power broker for the ego enhancing fix it brings to him; not necessarily for the merit of a given proposal itself.

Such is not a formula which helps make North Canton "a city that works!"

A HUSBAND/WIFE POLITICAL SPAT IN MASSILLON'S FOURTH WARD?

UPDATE:  05/13/2013 AT 05:32 AM

Re:  Edward Hampton filed petition, see ABJ article (LINK) on battle in Summit County as to whether or not a Republican affiliated candidate will be allowed to run for a clerk of courts position as a "non-party" candidate.

ORIGINAL BLOG

Late last week the SCPR got a tip that something unusual was going on in Massillon's Ward 4 in terms of the upcoming November Massillon City Council election.

The Report was told to check Stark County Board of Elections candidates' filing website for November.

Why November?

Because there was a filing for a candidacy for Massillon Ward 4 councilperson that might seem a bit odd, perhaps, even shocking.

Sure enough, on checking the records yours truly did get a jolt.

What is jolting about Edward F. Hampton filing with the Stark County Board of Elections (BOE) to run as a "non-party" council candidate in Massillon's fourth ward?

How about this for an answer?

His wife, Quenessa Hampton, is the sitting Ward 4 Democratic councilwoman having been appointed on February 21st of this year to replace Tony Townsend when he was elevated to being council president by Massillon's Democratic Central Committee members on this past January 29th.

Really?

Indeed!

On February 1st she filed her petitions to run for Ward 4 councilperson with the BOE.

What is this - two Hamptons living at the same address filing to run for the same office all about?

Good question!

The SCPR tracked Quenessa down at Monday's (May 6th) council meeting and among other things asked her about the Edward Hampton filing.

She was so closed mouth about it that she would only say that if elected Edward would do a fine job for the residents of Ward 4.

She declined to tell the SCPR whether or not she and Edward are spouses.

That information (that he and Quenessa are married and live together at 123 Shriver Avenue) came in a telephone conversation between The Report and Edward on Wednesday.

Of course, the SCPR being the political sleuth that yours truly is,  is not quite buying any notion that an apparent Hampton v. Hampton (husband versus wife) match-up is about political differences between the two.

Edward's explanation to The Report is that he will make a better councilperson than his wife is hardly the stuff of irreconcilable political differences that would promote him to run against her.

The SCPR sees Edward "waiting in the wings" as indicative of some political strategizing going on.

Quenessa did hint (the SCPR's inference) in our conversation that perhaps Edward's move might have something to do with the fact that she currently is a member of the National Guard.  But she would not go into any detail.

Edward told yours truly that there was no strategizing going on and that his filing a petition of May 1st was not promoted by any dealing with or consultation with Stark County or Massillon Democratic Party officials.

When the SCPR first got wind of the seemingly competitive husband/wife filing, an email was sent to Stark Dems chairman Randy Gonzalez, to wit:

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:46 AM, Martin Olson <tramols@att.net> wrote:

Randy,

Qu[e]nessa  Hampton, as you undoubtedly know, will become the Democratic Party nominee for Massillon City Council's Ward 4 seat today inasmuch as she is running unopposed.

Yet on May 4th [actually, it was May 1] of this year an Edward F. Hampton listed at the same address as Quinessa filed a "non-party petition to run for the Ward 4 seat which Qunessa was appointed to fill a vacancy caused by Tony Townsend's selection as council president (a vacancy caused by Glenn Gamber's late 2012 resignation)  by the four (4) members of the Massillon Ward 4 Democratic Central Committee precinct members at Stark County Democratic Party headquarters on Thursday, February 21st, under your supervision,

Why would Edward F. Hampton of 123 Shriver Ave SE, Massillon be filing as a non-party candidate against Quinessa N. Hampton of 123 Shriver Ave SE, Massillon and, of course, the Republican candidate (Triner) in November's general election?

It appears that perhaps the Stark County Democratic Party through presently unidentified to the SCPR persons (in terms of political advice being given) seemingly in coordination with Edward and Qu[e]nessa may be doing some "political" hedging with respect to the Ward 4 seat.

As party chairman, your response; your explanation?

Martin Olson
Stark County Political Report

Gonzalez's response:

Today was the first I heard of this I have no idea what the issue is/was. Ms. Hampton was duly elected by the precinct pe[r]sons of the 4th ward to fill the vacancy. Where it goes from there is up to the electors of the 4th ward in Massillon.

A well placed Massillon political figure has told the SCPR that he understands that there might be a problem with Quenessa being in the National Guard and being a political party connected officeholder as she presently is.

The Report's source further says that Quenessa may be permitted by the military to fill out her appointment (which runs through December 31, 2013) but not actually run for election in November.

Yours truly has turned to the Internet for information on what a member of the military may or may not do in terms of holding political office (LINK, LINK re:  National Guard).

Seemingly, not very much.

However, there is this language (LINK):

When circumstances warrant, the Secretary concerned or the Secretary's designee may permit a member covered by the prohibition against holding public office, above, to remain or become a nominee or a candidate for civil office. What that means is that if a Congressman, retired from the military were recalled to active duty for more than 270 days, the Secretary of the service could allow them to retain their public office (or, even become a candidate for re-election).

Could it be that the Hamptons are working with the military to get special permission for Quenessa to be allowed to stand for election in November?

If such is the case and permission materializes, then presumably Edward withdraws as a candidate.

If such is the case and permission does not materialize, then presumably Quenessa withdraws and then the "non-party" Edward advances to run against Republican Jim Triner in November.

But could there be a problem if Edward is pressed into service?

The SCPR has checked the latest BOE registration data from the Ohio secretary of state website and sees that Edward is listed as a Democrat.

So the question is whether or not someone will object to Edward running as a non-party candidate?

The SCPR has been told that a Board of Elections member is suggesting that anyone running as a non-party candidate who currently is listed in BOE voter registration records as being of one political party or the other may not be approved by the board to run in the November 5 election as a non-party candidate.

If it turns out that Quenessa cannot run, and there is a successful challenge to Edward running as a non-party candidate, does this mean that the Republicans gain a seat that one would expect to be a Democratic seat?

If such is a real question, wouldn't it stand to reason that someone in the Massillon Democratic political hierarchy is very much involved in helping to construct a scenario that the seat does not fall into the hands of the Republicans?

Does the unfolding of the Hampton situation - if it eventuates into a "nobody but Triner" running - suggest a change in the outlook for the post-November election Massillon City Council line up?

A Ward 4 race with only Triner running would be a political coup for the Massillon GOP.

By the SCPR Party Index Calculation (PIC), the Democrats are at 60% in Ward 4.

MAIER PINS HOPE OF "EQUIVALENCY AS A 'PRINCIPLE OF LAW'" ON REMAINING STARK CO. SHERIFF?

UPDATED AT 09:30 AM

SUMMARY OF MAIER'S LEGAL ARGUMENTS

The doctrine of equivalents is a legal rule in most of the world's patent systems that allows a court to hold a party liable for patent infringement even though the infringing device or process does not fall within the literal scope of a patent claim, but nevertheless is equivalent to the claimed invention. (Source:  Wikipedia)

It appears to the SCPR that George Maier's legal counsel (paid for by Stark County taxpayers contracted at $20,000) is using "the legal doctrine of equivalents" to keep George as Stark County sheriff. (LINK to brief filed May 6th)

Counsel does not specifically articulate equivalency as his argument but it is - in the judgment of The Report - the essence of his advocacy.

Put another way would be to say that Maier does not meet requirements of Ohio Revised Code Section (ORC) 311.01(B)(8) and (B)(9) [LINK to statute] as a matter of law (de jure) but does as a matter of fact (de facto).

Put still another way (a very unlawyer-esque one) would be to say that counsel is throwing a lot of stuff at the seven justices of the Ohio Supreme Court and hoping against hope that enough of it sticks to result in Maier remaining as sheriff of Stark County.

BACKGROUND OF HOW THE QUESTION OF WHO IS TO BE STARK COUNTY SHERIFF GOT TO THE OHIO SUPREME COURT

As readers of the SCPR know, Democrat Mike McDonald (now deceased) won an election in November, 2012 over Republican Larry Dordea to become sheriff-elect in a relatively close election in which Stark Countians were nearly divided 52%/47% as to whom should be the county sheriff.

It was known before the election that McDonald was suffering from esophageal cancer and there was ample speculation that he would not be able to serve if elected.

One SCPR source points to a speech that McDonald made to the Massillon Fraternal Order of Police during the campaign in which McDonald himself made comments which fueled the conjecture.

Some of those who were skeptical about the survival of McDonald to actually be able to serve as sheriff drifted into political cynicism and started murmuring that McDonald's health condition was being hidden by the Stark County's Democratic Party's leadership.

Really.  Why?

So that if an unfortunate and regrettable scenario in which an elected but unable to serve situation should materialize, then the Stark County Democratic Party Central Committee would be commanded as a matter of Ohio law (ORC 305.02) to name his replacement.

Well, as we now know, the situation did materialize.

The Stark County Democratic Party leadership has emphatically denied that any of them had any knowledge whatsoever that McDonald's ability to serve was in question in the run up to November 6, 2013.

To the SCPR, the denials fall in the category of:  who believes that?

Whether or not any of the Stark County Democratic Party leaders knew, there is no question that the materialization (i.e. McDonald's letter of resignation on January 3, 2013) deprived the mass of Stark County voters in the election of their say as to who would be Stark County's next sheriff.

On February 5, 2013 some 177 voting Stark County Democratic Central Committee members gathered at the Mayfield Senior Center and voted 92 (George T. Maier), 84 (Lou Darrow) and 1 (Larry Dordea) in naming Maier sheriff.

Key Stark County Party Democratic leaders (official and unofficial) played major roles in the selection process.

The SCPR evaluates that they were five in number, to wit:

• Randy Gonzalez, Stark County Democratic Party chairman; a Maier supporter,
• Tim Swanson, retired Stark County sheriff; a Darrow supporter,
• John Ferrero, Stark County prosecutor and former Stark County Democratic Party chairman; a Darrow supporter,
• William J. Healy, II, mayor of Canton, a Stark County Democratic Party precinct committee person; a Maier supporter, and
• Johnnie A. Maier, Jr., Massillon clerk of courts, a former Stark County Democratic Party chairman, currently a Stark Dems executive vice president; obviously, a brother George supporter

It is interesting to the SCPR of how in our democratic-republic:

• 171,129 Stark County voters (which, of course, included Democrats, Republicans and political independents)

got reduced to:

• 177 Democratic precinct committee persons

got further reduced to:

• 4 Stark County Democratic Party leaders as centralizing figures of political influence

penultimately reduced to:

• 7 Ohio Supreme Court justices none of whom are from Stark County and who sit in Columbus, Ohio

and, perhaps, ultimately to the persons:

• 3 in number (reference:  from 171,129 Stark Countians) Gonzalez, Johnnie A. Maier, Jr, and William J. Healy, II, 
• Note: Gonzalez as Jackson Township fiscal officer, Maier as Massillon clerk of courts and Healy as mayor of Canton collectively do not represent even one-half of the entire population of Stark County; approximately 378,000)

who (if the Supreme Court goes Maier's way) will have, in essence, selected Stark County's next sheriff.

But that is where we are folks!

America's democratic-republic at its finest, no?

BACK TO THE MAIER ARGUMENTS

In order to remain what the SCPR sees as essentially being the choice of three key Stark County Democratic Party leaders (Gonzalez, Healy and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr), George T. Maier needs to be praying to the Almighty that enough of the stuff being thrown at the Ohio Supreme Court by his legal counsel sticks.

Well, exactly what is that "stuff?"

How about:

• serving two days (January 12 and 13, 2013) as a Harrison County (about an hour's drive from Massillon) deputy sheriff appointee at the hand of law enforcement friend
• while he was Massillon's safety/service director
• constituted "full-time" law enforcement employment (as required by ORC 311.01(B)(8)(a) or (b) within three/four years going back from February 6, 2013,
• serving as a political appointee by the Strickland administration as assistant director of the Ohio Department of Public Safety (ODPS - also director for a few days at the end of the administration)
• (probably at the behest of brother Johnnie, Jr - who had/has close relationship with the former governor as being the first Stark County Democratic Party chairman who endorsed Strickland in the 2006 Democratic Primary),
• Note:  being a ODPS official is NOT listed in ORC 311.01 as qualifying as full-time law enforcement employment,
• attaining ORC 311.01 required law enforcement supervisory experience by bootstrapping himself into supervision in having served as a political appointee in the ODPS which, as pointed out above, is not listed in 311.01 as being a qualifying office,
• meeting the two year post-secondary (high school) educational requirement of the statute by virtue of an estimate by Stark State College officials that his prior law enforcement work experience as a state highway patrolman and municipal policeman would be the "equivalent" of 67 credit hours (60 hours being the standard for two years of post-secondary) at Stark State,
• Note:  Maier's brief does not mention
• that Stark State at a maximum grants 30 hours of equivalency hours as Stark State hours

At the beginning of Swanson's Quo Warranto action, Maier sought to have the suit dismissed on the basis of Swanson not being a qualified person to bring the proceeding.

Maier lost that argument but doing what any lawyer would do, Maier's attorney tries once again as part of his throwing in any and everything including the kitchen sink tries again on the standing issue in his brief.

Then he gets into the politics of the situation.

Isn't that interesting?

Kind of like "the pot calling the kettle black," no?

George, Johnnie and William were not being political?

In reality, the political factor is irrelevant.  But it can serve as diversionary "stuff."

As the SCPR sees it, Maier's counsel was merely attempting to muddy the water and thereby get the court off focusing on the literal requirements of ORC Sections 311.01(B)(8) & (9).

And, to boot, what logic!

Ohio law provides that politicians (i.e. central committee members) select a sheriff when a vacancy occurs and therefore the Ohio Supreme Court should not entertain a Quo Warranto because politics played into selection process?

And, there is the "the party" determined that Maier (and Darrow and Dordea) are qualified.

Whew!

Who would dispute a political party determining the qualifications of candidates for sheriff?

SCPR sarcasm, of course.

How did the Stark Dems qualify the candidates by the criteria of ORC 311.01?

Chairman Gonzalez asked two "select" attorneys (one in the hire of Gonzalez on a Writ of Prohibition filed by candidate Darrow against the chairman) present at the February 5  meeting what they thought as to the qualifications of the candidates.

As if orchestrated by the chairman, the answer, of course:  "qualified."

To him, their opinions were binding.

How convenient.

Other attorneys present at the meeting differed (one of who happens to be the Stark County prosecutor), but, of course, they were ignored by party officials.

To the SCPR, "the party qualification" talk by Maier's attorney was just more of the "stuff" being thrown at the court.

Another diversion from the real role of the court.

The evidence submitted by the Maier camp is replete with George Maier's impressive array of his law enforcement experience going all the way back to when he served as a Hartville police officer and a Tuscarawas Township police officer.

And this, again, is "stuff."

Nobody that the SCPR knows argues that George T. Maier is not de facto thoroughly trained and experienced in law enforcement.

But the generalized training and experience are not the issues addressed by ORC 311. Someone like Swanson needed to bring forth the qualification factor to be adjudicated.

The statute has some very specific requirements that anyone including Maier must meet in order to qualify under the law of Ohio to be sheriff.

Is the rule of law to prevail or is the opinion of political men and women to prevail?

That is the question.

In addition to the Maier brief, the Buckeye Sheriffs' Association (BSSA) a non-profit, law enforcement interest lobbying organization) weighed in with the SCPR deems to be "an almost laughable" - friend of the court - brief.  (LINK)

Laughable?

So the SCPR thinks.

How so?

Well, the BSSA took the position that its lobbying the Ohio General Assembly to enact ORC 311.01 and that therefore the Ohio Supreme Court should look to it as to the determiner of legislative intent and more particularly whether or not the OBSA thought George Maier to be qualified.

Legislative intent?

One goes to the Legislature for legislative history, no?

Not to the Buckeye State Sheriffs' Association, right?

In its brief, the BSSA references the Maier brief (though it had not yet been filed with the court) which indicates that the BSSA was working hand-in-glove with Maier and his legal team.

Talk about injecting politics into the matter?

One might ask who is Maier's political contact within the BSSA, no?

Just some more of the "stuff" being thrown around?

To the SCPR, it's pretty clear that though George T. Maier appears to be de facto qualified to be Stark County sheriff; yours truly doubts that he is  de jure qualifed.

And his deficiency de jure is underscored by the content of the Maier brief.

While he was at it [i.e. throwing what the SCPR thinks is largely irrelevant "stuff" in to his argument, why didn't Maier legal eagle go out and get affidavits from deputies serving under Maier as to how well they think of him?

For the SCPR hears that the rank-and-file at the department think well of George.

Maier also had an offer by the Group 175 folks of Canton's Vassar Park Neighborhood (who are impressed with his effort to get deputies up to strength so as to be able to open up all 501 beds at the Stark County jail) to circulate petitions to gather signatures of Stark Countians who want the Ohio Supreme Court to rule in his favor?

Why not give them the go ahead and throw that "stuff" in to the mix before the court?

Stuff is stuff, isn't it?

WILL THE RULE OF LAW PREVAIL?

What will be interesting to see is whether or not Stark County's chief law enforcer will be held to the de jure standards of the law.

Of course, we will not know such until the Ohio Supreme Court hands down its decision.

The SCPR is not saying that if Maier is successful in having the Quo Warranto denied that such in and of itself indicates he has not de jure qualified.

To know that, one will have to analyze the court's reasoning.

Then and only then will we know whether or not the court found enough in the evidence presented and the arguments made to ensure that the rule of law prevailed.

For now, The Report sees very little in the Maier/BSSA briefs that get anywhere near making the case that George T. Maier literally meets the requirements of ORC 311.01(B)(8) and (9).

Even so, Maier may win with what the SCPR sees at throwing "stuff" and hoping enough of it sticks with the court to give him a victory.

The Report in past blogs has trotted out Craig T. Conley's saying:

The Supreme Court does not have to be right, it just has to be the Supreme Court.

Therein lies the major hope of George T. Maier's quest to remain Stark County sheriff.

ON THE BALLOT OR NOT, THERE WERE SOME "REAL" LOSERS IN YESTERDAY'S ELECTION, NO?

UPDATE AT 09:20 AM

------------------------------------------------------

SUBTOPICS

LOSERS

CANTON

THE BIGGEST LOSER IN YESTERDAY'S ELECTION:
CANTON MAYOR WILLIAM J. HEALY, II

• COLE LOSS
• PORTER LOSS
• GROUP 175

CLOSE BEHIND, MARY CIRELLI

NEXT, PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS BUSINESS AGENT DAVE KIRVEN

MASSILLON

A BIG LOSER:    MASSILLON'S JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR.

• AULT LOSS

FINALLY, MASSILLON MAYOR KATHY CATZAZRO-PERRY

• CITY REVENUES PICTURE

WINNERS

• BILL SMUCKLER
• GREG HAWK
• FRANK MORRIS
• KIM PEREZ
• MEGAN STARRETT

-------------------------------------------------------

THE HEALY LOSSES

The person who had the most to lose in Stark County's 2013 primary election yesterday was Canton mayor William  J. Healy, II.

And he came through in flying colors.

By the Stark County Political Report's calculation, on future Canton City Council key votes (meaning on issues that Healy thinks he must win on), as a consequence of Joe Cole's defeat in Ward 9 and Greg Hawk's win in Ward 1, he is likely going to lose at least by a 7 to 5 vote.

Or, as a leading Canton politician told the SCPR last night, at the very least he is going to have to compromise with council to council's liking.

Of course, everyone who understands Hizzhonor, he is a "my way or the highway" type of guy and so there are likely to be some ugly, nasty fights between him and council with the dawn of 2014 and a new make up of council.

While Healy tried to make it appear that he was okay with either Cole or Frank Morris, III (the incumbent Democrat councilman) in the 9th ward in making equal campaign contributions to both; the truth of the matter is that he was an out-and-out Cole supporter and Cole's loss is understood by political cognoscenti to also be a Healy loss.

One of the big fights in Canton politics in 2014 is going to be the fight initiated this year by Citizen Bruce Nordman from Ward 9's Vassar Park and his Group 175's effort to force the city to get the Canton police force up to 175 officer strength.

Healy is against this move because of city's dire financial condition.  He has intimated to Nordman et al that he might be open to going up to 165 in 2014.

That was before the Cole/Morris results.

And, make no mistake about it, Vassar Park's Group 175 was a key to Morris' smashing victory yesterday and one can see Healy backpedaling already and scrambling to find the money (about $1.3 million per year) to bring the CPD up to 175 officers strong.

One more thing on the Cole/Morris race.

A humongous loser from an investment standpoint were the Stark County trade unions who contributed to the Cole campaign.

In the end (including monies raised after the last reporting date:  04/17/2013) these unions likely will be shown to put more than $10,000 in to the Cole campaign coffers.

You talk about a bad investment?

Wow!

Didn't Kiiven and union pals come out looking like they flushed a big wad of hard working union members' money right down the toilet?

And the word is that Kirven is working feverishly signing up precinct committee members in his quest to take over the Stark County Democratic Party with the precinct committeepersons elections of 2014.

As readers of the SCPR know, yours truly thinks Randy Gonzalez is an ineffective party chairman (e.g. can't get meaningful opposition to Stark's statehouse Republicans [Oelslager, Schuring and Hagan]).  But, at least, he not throwing thousands of dollars into hopeless causes.

SMUCKLER BECOMES MAJORITY LEADER?

There are other changes in Canton government as a result of yesterday's election results.

Long time Canton political and government figure Bill Smuckler will be returning as a councilman at large.

And he is not just "any councilman-at-large!"

He is a Healy political nemesis.  Smuckler bested Healy in the 2003 Canton Democratic Primary to earn the right to face off against Republican Janet Weir Creighton in that year's general election.

That election was the beginning of a Healy/Smuckler hate/love political affair that has persisted ever since.

Love?

Yes.  Smuckler did rely on Healy for help of sorts in his losing effort to become a Stark County commissioner last year in his battle against Republican Regula.

But the SCPR sees the relationship more like "political hate" or at least "intense political competition."  And such is to become very evident in 2014 as Smuckler takes control of Canton City Council in either a de facto sense or a de jure (perhaps as majority leader replacing Healy ally David Dougherty - Ward 6) sense of control.

It had to be galling to Healy that Smuckler garnered the "most votes ever for Smuckler in a Democratic primary" in becoming one of three Democrats qualifying for November's general election (which is tantamount to election even if some non-party/independents file).

HAWK BECOMES FINANCE CHAIR, ONCE AGAIN?

Another negative fallout for Healy is the reelection of Ward 1 Councilman Greg Hawk.  Should we now be looking to Hawk's return as the finance committee chairman with Cole's (the current chairman) defeat?

Hawk has been nursing a grudge against Healy and his council allies for having removed him as finance chairman after the 2011 elections.

If Hawk returns as the chair, Healy's life will be dramatically affected in a way not to the mayor's liking.

Remember also that Hawk was one of six councilpersons who pushed legislation to significantly increase the pay of cadet Canton police which effort was shunted aside by Cole at the mayor's request.

We should be looking for that issue to resurface in 2014, no?

One final note.

There is speculation that Jimmy Babock (councilman-at-large) will be going to work for his old boss (at the Stark County auditor's office) Kim Perez with Perez's victory in the Canton treasurer's race yesterday.

There is further conjecture that the defeated Joseph Cole would be in line to replace Babcock on council.

Hmm?

Let's see.  Cole got hoodwinked into not running for reelection for councilman-at-large by Mary Cirelli. Instead he files for Ward 9.  He loses big time.  In the meantime he introduces legislation to eliminate council-at-large positions in Canon.

So is this an opportunity for Joe Cole to show once again what a huge political hypocrite he is?

Such would not surprise the SCPR.

JOHNNIE A. MAIER, JR. (AND, OF COURSE, SHANE JACKSON) & CATAZARO-PERRY LOSE IN MASSILLON

In Massillon's Ward 5, former Stark County Democratic Party chairman (also Massillon clerk of courts) Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. was "all-in" in the Ault/Geragherty/Starrett Ward 5 Massillon City Council race.

Now held by Republican Donnie Peters, Jr., who is not seeking reelection, this ward is Massillon's "most Democratic ward" and therefore very likely to fall back into the hands of the Dems this fall.

The Healy equivalent in Massillon is Johnnie A. Maier, Jr.

He is a guy who is a power politician who looks at politics as black and white (translated:  "for Maier or against Maier") and desperately seeks to absolutely control everything he puts his hand to.

His political power perch in Massillon is in the form of Mayor Kathy Catazaro-Perry.

He handpicked her to take on the-then 24-year mayor Frank Cicchinelli in the Democratic Primary of 2011 and succeeded in spades in putting his person in charge of Massillon's executive branch of government.

But with her election, a "Houston Massillon - we've got a problem" surfaced immediately.

It became obvious early on that KCP was not going to get along with a Massillon City Council controlled 5 to 4 by Republicans.

While it may seem to be a Republican/Democrat problem, it is not.

It is Catazaro-Perry being high-handed (go figure, no? - her political patron is Johnnie A. Maier, Jr) vis-a-vis council which is the bane of her existence.

Solution?

Elect KCP friendly councilpersons to Massillon City Council, no?

Enter Catazaro-Perry self-styled political gurus Maier and his acolyte Shane Jackson (political director of the Stark County Democratic Party).

One such person was supposed to have been Joseph Ault in Ward 5; a November election Democratic "plum for the picking," no?

Maier and friends pumped impressive money into Ault's campaign effort.

It seemed reasonable to think that with help from Massillon's political elite duo, Ault could be the beginning of finding an end of the mayor's frustration with council.

But it will not be Ault!

Lo and Behold!  Maier and Jackson fail in their effort to help Catazaro-Perry.

Chalk Ward 5 up to being a winner for Stark County prosecutor John Dee Ferrero, Jr. (a man who has deep political roots in Massillon as having been Tigerland's law director).

Megan Starrett is on Ferrero's prosecutorial staff.

In Massillon there are three factions in the Democratic Party:  the Maier faction, the Cicchinelli faction and the Ferrero faction.

While Ferrero may have won the Ward 5 battle, he lost on the city's attempt to get an increase in the income tax.  And he lost big time.

Catazaro-Perry has battled Ferrero and his chief counsel John Kurtzman (also a man with deep, deep Massillon ties and history) over her desire:

• to have Massillon deal with its financial short fall with a reduction in the credit that Massilonians living in other income taxing jurisdictions get against their Massillon income tax, and
• to add fees (e.g. assess citizens for street lighting fees thereby eliminating such as a Massillon general fund expense),

as the way for Massillon to cope with its revenue woes.

Ferrero and Kurtzman make relatively big bucks as the honchos in the county prosecutor's office and by virtue of the office being in the city of Canton they pay Canton's 2% tax which because of the Massillon credit means they pay no tax (given Massillon's 1.8% tax) to Massillon.

Had the Massillon tax issue passed they would have paid an "itsy-bitsy" amount to Massillon because the new tax rate would have increased to 2.1%.

But it didn't and so Ferrero, Kurtzman and their cohort (Starrett) will pay no income tax to Massillon.

Catazaro-Perry may take some delight in the tax issue failing inasmuch as she "quietly" opposed it.

For her to do so is more than a bit perverse.

Because she now faces having to administer a city that will via council action be implementing huge cuts in city services.

Think she isn't going the face a lot of heat from a public who wants it both ways:  city services as usual, but do not ask for more revenues.

In view of the lopsided citizen rejection of more revenues for Massillon government, how could she possibly continue her push her "not by a vote of the people" drive for enhanced revenues?

She may not see it this way, but the SCPR thinks that the resounding vote of the people against more taxes was an emphatic loss by her on the issue of whether or not there are to be additional revenues for Massillon government.

If she chooses to persist on her quest, should she decide for reelection in 2015; she will see her position come back to haunt her.

While Maier came up a loser in the Ault/Geragherty/Starrett race, all may not be lost.

In Ward 2 there was a face off between Irwin and Bobby Martin in the Democratic Primary.

And Irwin won.

There is no direct evidence that Irwin (a Stark County recorder employee) is a Maier man, there is plenty to indirect evidence.

Irwin works for Stark County recorder Rick Campbell who is married to Plain Township administrator Lisa Campbell who is the daughter of former Stark County commissioner and Johnnie A. Maier, Jr protege Gayle Jackson (son Shane is Maier's chief deputy in the Massillon clerk of courts).

So there may be hope that Maier can help out Herhonor in getting some support from council?

Probably not.

The SCPR figures that Republican Nancy Halter will win again in the 2nd in November.

So in the long run, Maier likely strikes out totally in his foray into Massillon City Council politics.

Johnnie A. Maier, Jr. a political loser twice on council?

And there could be more.

Still to be analyzed is his involvement in Ward 4 and in Ward 6.

IT'S TURN OUT THE LIGHTS, THE PARTY IS OVER FOR MARY CIRELLI?

The win by Kim Perez in the Canton treasurer's race (in terms of long time Canton politician Mary Cirelli coming in third) was a BIG surprise to yours truly.

Although yours truly did say on Ron Ponder's Points to Ponder on Monday that the SCPR would not be surprised to see Perez win; that Mary Cirelli comes in third was not part of The Report's thinking.

Mary has a history of doing well in three person races.

So her third place finish is indication that she is done in Canton politics.

Inasmuch as Mayor Healy was a big Perez supporter, he gets a little bit of being a winner with Perez's election.

More importantly, he will not have to deal with (at least, in an official capacity) Mary Cirelli any longer.

She will be off council in January, 2014.

Cirelli, while having fun with Cole in the filing deadline saga with him as to whether she was running for reelection to council or for Canton treasurer, made had huge political blunder (in hindsight) on her own.

She should have stayed in the council race.  Certainly, one would think, that she could have come in at least third, if not second, in a three person race, no?

Apparently, the voters knew that Mary was unsuited to be treasurer.  Prior to running for treasurer, she had never be THE person in charge.  She always been either one of twelve councilpersons, one of three commissioners or one of ninety-nine state representatives.

In such contexts she could ask questions galore and thereby served in a "for the public benefit" prized role.  And, she could not make screwy decisions for the body politic in these settings.

However, a Canton city treasurer, she would have been the  "elected" by the people and only accountable to the people at reelection time chief executive.

Hmm?

Like her or not on a personal basis, who thinks that Mary Cirelli is chief executive material?

But do not count her out from trying a council comeback in 2015.

Probably the person who - on the merits - should have been elected is Kelly Zachary.  And she did make a very credible showing.  And this on top of a respectable showing against Republican Alex Zumbar in the Stark County treasurer race of 2012.

Perhaps the Stark County Democratic Party leadership should be finding a place for Ms. Zachary on next year's ballot?

SCPR CONCLUSION ON THE BIGGEST LOSER IN THE 2013 STARK COUNTY PRIMARY ELECTION

The bottom line of this SCPR analysis is that - all-in-all -Mayor William J. Healy, II stands as the biggest loser in yesterday's primary election!

This election could be the beginning of the end of William J. Healy, II as a viable Stark County political figure!

PRIMARY ELECTION DAY